DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the correspondence filed on 02/09/24. Claims 1-20 are still pending and have been considered below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claims are directed to a processing system having a “processor”, which in view of Applicant’s own disclosure, appears to reasonably encompass the interpretation of both hardware and software processors; thus, is directed to software per se.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
The claim(s) recite(s) determining whether or not a captured image shows a disallowed target object whose identification information is not allowed to be provided.
The limitation of determining whether or not a captured image shows a disallowed target object whose identification information is not allowed to be provided is a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (ie. a user can manually decide if the image shows a disallowed target).
The limitation of determining whether or not a predetermined abnormality occurs is also a process that, under the broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind (ie. a user can manually decide if the predetermined abnormality occurred).
If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims only recite one additional element – using a processing system to perform the aforementioned steps. The processing system in the steps is recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as a generic processor performing a generic computer function) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Accordingly, this additional element does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea; thus, the claims are directed to an abstract idea.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional element of using a processing system to perform the claimed steps amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept; thus, the claims are not patent eligible.
Furthermore, the additional acts found in the remaining claims also do not result in the claims as a whole amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception because when considered separately, each of the dependent claims are merely directed to various conventional activities well known by one of ordinary skill in the art and/or would qualify as insignificant extra-solution activity.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Muhsin et al. (2023/0222887).
Claim 1: Muhsin et al. discloses an information processing system comprising:
a processor configured to:
acquire image data indicating a captured image [page 9, paragraph 0097]; and
in a case where the image shows a disallowed target object whose identification information for identifying an individual is not allowed to be provided, generate accompanying information of the image data without including the identification information regarding the disallowed target object(monitoring system can detect whether an unauthorized person is present using one or more methods such as facial recognition and/or identification/RFID tags, the monitoring system compares the image to a database of person profiles to determine whether or not it matches a known person; monitoring system can also monitor for various aspects of the infant, and provided or not provide, alerts as to the identified parameters of the infant based on the monitoring) [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Claim 2: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the image shows an allowed target object whose identification information is allowed to be provided, generate the accompanying information including the identification information regarding the allowed target object(output alert to devices and/or displays indicating various information such as unauthorized person alert or alert pertaining to monitored patient’s safety) [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 3: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where a predetermined abnormality occurs and the allowed target object is shown in the image, generate the accompanying information including the identification information regarding the allowed target object(unauthorized person detected, unauthorized person moves infant outside of zone, infant safety metrics, etc.) [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Claim 4: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: detect that the abnormality has occurred using the image data [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Claim 5: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: receive sensor data; and use the sensor data to detect that the abnormality has occurred [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Claim 6: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the processor is configured to: in a case where the abnormality has not occurred, generate the accompanying information without including the identification information regarding the disallowed target object and the allowed target object(not provide an alert if no reportable events are detected) [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Claim 7: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: transmit the accompanying information to an outside via a communication unit [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 8: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the processor is configured to: display the accompanying information to be transmitted to the outside on a predetermined display unit [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 9: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 10: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 2, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 11: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 3, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 12: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 4, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 13: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 5, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 14: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 6, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 15: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 7, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 16: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 8, wherein the accompanying information includes at least one of skeleton information regarding the target object or object information regarding an object other than the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 17: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 9, wherein the skeleton information or the object information includes recognition probability information recognized from the image data [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 18: Muhsin et al. discloses the information processing system according to claim 1, wherein the identification information includes at least one of a name of the target object or an image showing the target object [pages 7-8, paragraph 0089].
Claim 19: Muhsin et al. discloses a non-transitory computer readable medium storing an information processing program causing a computer to execute a process comprising:
acquiring image data indicating a captured image [page 9, paragraph 0097]; and
generating, in a case where the image shows a disallowed target object whose identification information for identifying an individual is not allowed to be provided, accompanying information of the image data without including the identification information regarding the disallowed target object [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Claim 20: Muhsin et al. discloses an information processing method comprising:
acquiring image data indicating a captured image [page 9, paragraph 0097]; and
generating, in a case where the image shows a disallowed target object whose identification information for identifying an individual is not allowed to be provided, accompanying information of the image data without including the identification information regarding the disallowed target object [page 9, paragraphs 0098-0100].
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Verma (2018/0253954).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWARD ZEE whose telephone number is (571)270-1686. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amir Mehrmanesh can be reached at (571) 270-3351. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EDWARD ZEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435
Prosecution Insights